# Viresh Singh & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 828
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1385 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/viresh-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-49688
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities
)
Act,
1989-Section
3(1)(r)-
Section
3(1)(s) - It is settled law that all insults
or intimidation to a person will not be an
offense under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste
or
Scheduled Tribe-Offence under the Act is
not established merely on the fact that the
informant is a member of Scheduled Caste
unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim
belongs to such caste-It is not the case of
the complainant that at the time of
incident other peoples of the locality were
present. The incident had occurred inside
a house which was not within the public
view and no member of public was
present
at
that
time-The
complaint
neither
discloses
the
caste
of
the
complainant or her family members nor
the allegations are that they were made in
public view. Also , the offending words are
not purported to be made for the reason
that the informant is a person belonging
to Scheduled Caste.

Where the incident has occurred inside the
house and not in public view then offence u/s
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act will not be
made out merely because the complainant
belongs to SC/ST. (Para 10, 11, 13, 14)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. On the basis of above discussion,
the appeal filed by the appellant Jograj is
liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. The judgment of trial court is
hereby confirmed.

38. The accused Jograj is in jail. He
shall served out the punishment awarded by
the trial court.

39. Let the copy of judgment and
order as well as the records of trial court be
transmitted to the trial court concerned
forthwith for necessary information and
compliance of this order.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 828
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1385 of 2021

Viresh Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Nadeem
Murtaza,
Amit
Kr.
Singh
Bhadauriya, Jayant Mohan Verma

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Anupam Rastogi, Parijat Belerwa

Criminal
Law-
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities
)
Act,
1989-Section
3(1)(r)-
Section
3(1)(s) - It is settled law that all insults
or intimidation to a person will not be an
offense under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste
or
Scheduled Tribe-Offence under the Act is
not established merely on the fact that the
informant is a member of Scheduled Caste
unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim
belongs to such caste-It is not the case of
the complainant that at the time of
incident other peoples of the locality were
present. The incident had occurred inside
a house which was not within the public
view and no member of public was
present
at
that
time-The
complaint
neither
discloses
the
caste
of
the
complainant or her family members nor
the allegations are that they were made in
public view. Also , the offending words are
not purported to be made for the reason
that the informant is a person belonging
to Scheduled Caste.

Where the incident has occurred inside the
house and not in public view then offence u/s
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act will not be
made out merely because the complainant
belongs to SC/ST. (Para 10, 11, 13, 14)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of UK &anr. (2020)10
SCC 710

2. Khuman Singh Vs St. of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC
763

3. Swaran Singh Vs St., (2008) 8 SCC 435
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.2, learned AGA and perused
the material available on record.

2. By means of the present appeal
under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989 the appellants have
prayed
for
quashing
the
impugned
summoning order dated 9.3.2021 passed by
1 All. Viresh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
829
the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 242 of 2019
(Smt. Prema alias Ramguni Vs. Rakesh
Singh
and
others)
under
Section
452,323,504 and 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and the
proceedings of the said complaint case.

3. In short, the facts of the case are
that Prema @ Ramguni wife of Patiram,
resident of village Ram Nagar, Police
Station- Ramkot, District Sitapur preferred
an application under Section 156(3) CrPC
before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST
Act) Sitapur alleging therein on 16.08.2019
at about 9 PM the appellants entered into
the house of the complainant and started
abusing the complainant and her husband
and also assaulted her husband. On hearing
the noise, the sons and daughters came and
rescued. The appellants also abused their
sons and used caste aspersions. The
appellants also assaulted her sons and and
daughter Baby, who was pregnant. When
all the family persons started raising alarm,
the appellants left the spot. The aforesaid
incident was brought to the notice of the
police of Police Station-Ramkot but on
account of influence of the appellants, the
police did not help them. Thereafter, an
application about the aforesaid incident was
given to the Superintendent of Police,
Sitapur
through
registered
post
on
26.08.2019 and also met the Superintendent
of Police but no action was taken. Under
compelling circumstances, the applicants
filed the complaint in the court.

4. On the aforesaid complaint, the
learned Sessions Judge passed an order
dated 25.9.20219 registering the same as a
complaint
case.
After
recording
of
statement under Section 200 CrPC ,
statement of Patiram and Bebi, the learned
court below passed the impugned order
dated 9.3.2021 summoning the appellants
under the aforementioned sections.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the complaint has been
moved with malicious intention as when
the appellants came to know that the
respondents are destroying their trees by
pouring harmful chemical, the appellants
have reported the matter to the police. As a
counterblast, the present complaint has
been filed. It is said that the husband of the
respondent no.2 Patiram and his son are
working in the Sitapur Judgeship and has
lot of influence. It has been stated that
when his FIR was not lodged on account of
influence of respondents upon the local
police, the appellant no.1 has moved an
application under Section 156 (3) CRPC on
6.11.2019 but the same is still pending on
account
of
pressure
tactics
of
the
respondent no.1 and his son.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further argued that the ingredients of
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are
not attracted in the circumstances of the
case as the alleged incident has taken place
inside the house and not at a place within
public view. Further, in view of the
decision rendered in Fiona Shrikhande
Versus State of Mahrashtra and another
(2013) 14 SCC 44, even offence under
other sections are not made out against the
appellants.

7. Lastly, it has been argued that the
present criminal proceedings have been
initiated with an ulterior motive to harass
the appellants which is causing serious
prejudice as well as loss of reputation in the
locality where the appellants are residing. It
is said that the present criminal proceedings
are nothing but an absolute abuse of the
process of law.
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Refuting the assertions of the
appellants,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 2 and learned AGA have
submitted that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order.

9. The learned Court below has
proceeded to pass the summoning order
after
following
due
procedure
and
recording the statement of the complainant
and other witnesses. Therefore, the present
is liable to be dismissed.

10. It is settled law that all insults or
intimidation to a person will not be an
offense under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. The offense under section 3(1)(r) of
the Act would indicate the ingredient of
intentional insult and intimidation with an
intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in ?any place within
public view?. In the case of Hitesh Verma
versus State of Uttarakhand another
(2020)10 SCC 710, which has been relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
an occasion to examine the applicability of
Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that the basic
ingredients of the offence under under
section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified
as (1) intentionally insults or intimidates
with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and
(2) in any place within public view. In this
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:-

"13. The offence under under
section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the
ingredient
of
intentional
insult
and
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled
Tribe.
All
insults
or
intimidations to a person will not be an
offence under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve
the socio-economic conditions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
as they are denied number of civil rights.
Thus, an offence under the Act would be
made out when a member of the vulnerable
section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment.
The assertion of title over the land by either
of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment.
Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies
in
accordance
with
law.
Therefore, if the appellant or his family
members have invoked jurisdiction of the
civil court, or that respondent No.2 has
invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court,
then the parties are availing their remedies
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
established by law. Such action is not for
the reason that respondent No.2 is member
of Scheduled Caste."

11. In another judgment reported as
Khuman Singh V. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2020) 18 SCC 763, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in a case for
applicability of section 3 (2)(V) of the Act,
the fact that the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste would not be enough to
inflict enhanced punishment. The Court
observed that there was nothing to suggest
that the offence was committed by the
appellant only because the deceased
belonged to Scheduled Caste. Therefore,
offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a
member of Scheduled Caste unless there is
1 All. Viresh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
831
an intention to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the
reason that the victim belongs to such
caste.

12. In the case of Swaran Singh
Versus State (2008) 8 SCC 435, the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
define
the
expression "place within public view" and
"public place". The relevant paragraph
reads as under:-

"28. It has been alleged in the
FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a `Chamar') when he stood
near the car which was parked at the gate
of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since
the gate of a house is certainly a place
within public view. It could have been a
different matter had the alleged offence
been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the
offence is committed outside the building
e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn
can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall,the lawn
would certainly be a place within the
public view. Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression `place within
public view' with the expression `public
place'. A place can be a private place but
yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily
mean a place which is owned or leased
by the Government or the municipality
(or other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by
private persons or private bodies."

13. The instant case is to be examined
the light of the aforesaid proposition laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid cases. It is the clear cut stand of
the complainant-Prema @ Ramguni in the
complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC that
the appellants had entered into the house at
9 PM using expletive language and
assaulted her husband and sons. It is not the
case of the complainant that at the time of
incident other peoples of the locality were
present. The incident had occurred inside a
house which was not within the public view
and no member of public was present at
that time.

14. Therefore, from the material on
record offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the
complainant is a member of Scheduled
Caste unless there is an intention to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the
victims belong to such a caste. Moreover, it
comes out from the record that there was a
dispute between the parties with regard to
trees standing over a piece of land which is
situated near the house of the respondent
no.2. The appellants have also filed a
complaint against the private respondents
in respect of the dispute took place earlier.
It is relevant to add that the complaint
neither
discloses
the
caste
of
the
complainant or her family members nor the
allegations are that they were made in
public view. Also, the offending words are
not purported to be made for the reason that
the informant is a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste.The other sections of IPC
are also not attracted, thus no case is made
out against the appellants in the aforesaid
case.

15. In view of the above discussion, I
am of the considered opinion that the
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges levelled against the appellants
under sections 452,323,504 and 506 IPC
and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act
are not made out against the appellants.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed and the proceedings of complaint
Case No. 242 of 2019 Smt. Prema alias
Ramguni Vs. Rakesh Singh and others) so
far as it relates to the appellants, under
sections 452,323,504 and 506 IPC and
section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act,
pending in the court of Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Sitapur and the impugned
summoning order dated 09.03.2021 passed
by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur
are hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 832
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Second Appeal No. 2396 of 1981

Shrimati Ram Ratti & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Gorakh Prasad Dubey ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri V.B. Khare, Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Sri
Satendra Kumar Singh, Sri Suresh Chandra
Varma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri D.N. Misra, Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, Sri
C.B. Dhar Dubey, Sri P.P. Chaudhary

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100, - Specific Relief Act, 1963 -
Sections 16(c), 20 & 20(2): - Plaintiff's
Second Appeal - challenging the Judgment &
decree passed by court below in Civil Appeals -
Suit for Specific performance of a contract for
sale - being aggrieved the findings of trial court,
both parties filed separate Appeals before first
appellate court - first appellate court set aside
the trial court judgment and decree in favour of
plaintiff-respondent - substantial question of law
-
law
on
unfair
advantage
in
specific
performance of contract is well settled - and
traced its origin from the principles of equity -
and - on second issue of 'the notice' - there is
no such notice on record whether plaintiff
respondent expressed his willingness to perform
his part of the promise - plaintiff-respondent
failed to aver and prove his notice to the
defendant-appellant to perform his part of
contract - the law in this regard is very well
settled
that
there
must
be
clear
and
unambiguous proof of notice as required under
the law - thus, both the grounds appeal
succeeds and is allowed - judgment of appellate
court is set aside - defendants shall return the
amount received - directions issued accordingly.
(Para - 8, 12, 13)

Second Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. A.C. Arulappan Vs Ahalya Naik, reported as
(2001) 6 SCC 600,

2. Ramesh ChandVs Asruddin, reported as
(2016) 1 SCC 653,

3. Manjunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hansi
Appellant VsTammanasa & ors., AIR 2003 SC
1391

4.
Umabai & anr.-Appellants Vs Nilkanth
Dhondiba
Chavan
(Dead)
by
Lrs.&
anr.
Respondents as reported in 2005 3 AWC 2948,

5. C.S. Venkatesh Vs A.S.C. Murthy (D) By Lrs.
& ors. as reported in 2020 3 SCC 280,

6. Sughar Singh Vs Hari Singh (Dead) Through
LRS. & ors.. as reported in 2021 AIR(SC) 5581,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard counsels for the parties and
perused the record with their assistance.